Judging from my Twitter feed, I’m some sort of nativist hatemonger for believing borders should be enforced and national sovereignty matters. This is a wholly unfair characterization of my views, because on immigration I’m also somewhat of an elitist-RINO cuck. Unsurprisingly, I believe my three broad notions about immigration are quite reasonable.

1) Let’s better protect our borders. Do most Americans really believe that borders are “immoral?” Believe it or not, not very long ago the consensus among most political factions was that partitions between nations were legitimate and useful. I tend to believe in national self-determination, so I’m a “yes” on that question. And if you think it’s a strawman, you haven’t been paying attention the arguments of high-profile Democrats.

Even now, polls show that while most Americans don’t like the idea of a “wall,” a notion that’s taken on partisan dimensions, they still believe there’s some level of “crisis” at the southern border. Politicians certainly shouldn’t demagogue the problem, but I imagine that most Americans would consider even six terror suspects apprehended at the border (well, six names that appear on the terror database and happened to get caught) to be six too many.

Because whether the number of illegal immigrants is 25 million or 10, whether crossings are rising or falling, people breaking laws and imposing themselves on another country without permission undermines the ability of citizens in that country to make their own decisions—and that includes crafting a coherent immigration policy.

Moreover, any liberal reform on immigration — including any form of amnesty — is going to be untenable if would-be immigrants are incentivized to not only break the law, but also to put themselves in danger crossing areas of our porous border. (And yes, I realize that the habit of overstaying visas is also a big driver of illegal immigration.)

2) Strong border security doesn’t necessarily inhibit legal immigration — in fact, it might spur it. I happen to support increases in legal immigration, including work visas. I just want people to check in. I support citizenship, not only a form of “legalization,” for (no-felony committing) Dreamers who, for the most part, were brought here and won’t be properly assimilated without citizenship. Since the economy isn’t a zero-sum proposition, as a number of people in both parties seem to believe these days, there’s a good case that immigrants help the economy grow and make us richer.

These are liberal positions. If voters disagree, Congresses and presidents can calibrate the levels of immigration to comport with whatever democratic will dictates. They can’t do that with any confidence when we have millions of unaccounted people in the country.

Right now, millions of Americans are under the impression that illegal immigrants are “stealing” their jobs—and in some sense they are. My own economic view is that those workers generally help American consumers and the economy, but telling working class people that they’re bigots for having apprehensions about people who both circumvent the law and undercut their salaries isn’t helping this cause.

It’s quite plausible, in fact, that a more effective border would likely mellow attitudes about newcomers, in general. Polls show that Americans already support legal immigration in huge numbers. A less chaotic system would likely enhance that viewpoint.

(I’ve also been flooded with people assuring me that illegal immigrants have lower crime rates than American citizens. I’m skeptical this is true, as illegal communities aren’t prone to reporting crimes. But even if I concede the point, we can’t evict U.S. citizens. What we can do is embrace legal immigrants, who have even lower crime rates than those who break laws just to be here. Conflating the two does no one any favors. And though I’m not a pollster, I imagine arguing that “mass illegality is actually net plus because it negligibly brings down the overall felony rate” isn’t as convincing as proponents tend to think.)

3) Let’s embrace diversity, rather than allowing people in the closest proximity to define policy. After all, if one of the goals of immigration is to enhance American diversity, we shouldn’t allow those closest to the border to dictate the parameters of American immigration. I understand that Honduras is an appalling place, rife with crime and poverty, but so is Chad. I realize that Guatemalans are oppressed, but so are Coptic Christians in Egypt.

That said, if we want a diverse set of immigrants, we should welcome those with useful skills, and those with no skills at all. Millions of human beings in this world lack skills because they haven’t been allowed to develop their gifts in the theocratic, socialistic, or corrupt societies they live in. As we’ve seen with the most successful immigrant population that embrace American values — those from China or Nigeria or Eastern Europe — some people just need a chance.

Of course, in practice, converting these broad concepts into policy would be incredibly complex. Whatever immigration policy ultimately looks like, though, it shouldn’t be forced on us by the actions of others.